My new arrival today is another coin that has long been on my want list. I would have happily settled for a lesser example, but this one popped up on a venue new to me and I took it as a sign that it was meant to be mine . This issue is one of those that makes one think that the mint workers that year were competing for a Least Motivated Employee of the Month award. Off-center strikes and weak strikes were the rule rather than the exception, and sometimes the die engravers didn't seem like they cared very much for their work either. To be sure, the detailed overlapping scales on the aegis design was pretty unusual, and one can imagine some of the engravers being a bit put out at having to do all that intricate chiselling. Having said that, I really applaud the fellow who did the excellent aegis on mine... so, here's looking at you from 2,000 years on, nameless, unheralded die worker of the 46 BC Rome mint! ROMAN REPUBLIC Mn. Cordius Rufus, moneyer AR Denarius. 3.82g, 18.8mm. Rome mint, 46 BC. Crawford 463/2; Sydenham 978. O: Crested Corinthian helmet right, surmounted by owl, RVFVS to left. R: Aegis of Minerva decorated with facing head of Medusa in center, MN CORDIVS around. Mn. Cordius Rufus issued three different denarii types in 46 BC... Please feel free to show your examples of any and all of them!
Faaaabulous pickup, Z! Here's to the aegis engraver indeed I have none of his coins to add, although the cupid-on-dophin denarius has been on the wish list for several years.
I had to read the inscription. When I first saw the coin, I thought the obverse looked like Squidward from Spongebob, with a poodle dog on top of his head. No kidding when you say the mint workers were being "less than productive". Still, what a fantastic coin. I love the theme, and the little "flaws" just seem to endear me more to the coin. I think it is an incredible coin that most here would be happy owning. I know I would. Congratulations on such a fantastic find.
Now how would you know this bit of trivia? Do you watch cartoons often? The law business must be pretty slow.
Great coin @zumbly . I agree the art work on this one is great and production at the mint was less than perfect. I called this coin my non-portrait coin of Julius Caesar because it was minted in 46 BC, the year of Caesar's quadruple triumph. I can imagine the ones wielding the minting hammers were pushed to produce as many coins per day as they could => quality suffered. Caesar gave away lots of denarii during the triumph, see below. http://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-caesars-triumph/ To each soldier he gave 5,000 denarii, to each centurion double that amount, to each military tribune and prefect of cavalry double again, and to each member of the Plebs one hundred denarii.
my Grandson and Son visited me yesterday and Roman requested to watch SpongeBob and we got to watch it too^^
Thanks for the link, rr... that really may explain things. Quadruple triumph, eh... that Caesar was a bit of a showoff, wasn't he!
Great coin @zumbly, wish I had one! Here is one of the other denarii minted by Mn. Cordius Rufus in 46 BC. AR denarius 3.9 gm - 18 mm Obv: RVFVS III VIR, conjoined heads of the Dioscuri r., wearing pilei surrounded by stars. Rev: MN CORDIVS (or similar, MN in monogram), Venus standing left, holdings scales and sceptre, Cupid at shoulder Ref: SR440, Cr 463/1, Syd 976-976c
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/between-my-wife-and-i-an-owl-story.280813/ A while back we visited this coin and saw examples from several of us which I hope will repeat here. As usual, I got carriedaway learning things as a result of that thread (it's why we are here, right?). Mine:
If the official die-cutters were irritated carving the aegis imagine how frustrating it would be as a counterfeiter! Your hand begins to ache, cutting the aegis, and it reminds you that if you are caught forging denarii the pain will be the least of your problems. From Lex Cornelia testamentaria nummaria 81 BC: “Those who counterfeit gold or silver money, adulterate, wash, cast, cut, corrupt or intrude a vice into gold or silver coins, or refuse a money stamped with the face of the emperor unless it is a fake one: if they are of the elite they shall be exiled to an island, if they are of low class they shall be condemned to the mines or the cross. Slaves shall be punished capitally after the deed... Anyone who gilds or silvers base metal, anyone who mixes gold with silver, who plates coins using non-ferrous metal or tin, shall pay the penalty for counterfeiting.” [ http://www.coinweek.com/ancient-coins/damnatio-ad-bestias-happened-roman-counterfeiters/ ] Rome, moneyer Rufus, 46 BC, 2.92g 18mm counterfeit fourrée denarius. Obv: RVFVS; Owl perched on crest of Corinthian helmet; all within circle of dots. Rev: Small winged gorgoneion within eight-sided aegis with snakes as sides looping at vertexes, around MN·CORDIVS; all within circle of dots. (You may notice that I fooled you. The law, said to date from 81 BC, seems to mention "money stamped with the face of the emperor" which of course did not exist in Rome in 81 BC. Elsewhere I read the phrase was "forma publica", which I saw translated as "the mark of the State".)
This raises the question of whether you might be allowed to refuse coins of the Imperatorial period Imperators of the 'wrong' variety. They did not withdraw coins of the losers (Antony, Sextus Pompey) from circulation but they did not have what I would call "forma publica" which in 81 BC might have been 'Roma'. Opinion?
